The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Community Certificate for the petitioner's son. The Court held the remedy by way of appeal to the District Collector under relevant Government Orders was adequate and viable.
Petitioner directed to prefer an appeal before the District Collector within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:24.07.2017
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.10926 of 2017
K.Ravichandran .. Petitioner
Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in proceedings in Pa.Mu.1064/2015(A1) dated 03.07.2015 on the file of the Respondent, quash the same and direct the Respondent to issue Community Certificate to the Petitioner's son R.Senthamilan that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community based upon the Community Certificate already issued to the Petitioner, his daughter and his brother and also verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in Proceedings No.12227/CVIII/2007 dated 17.12.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkataramani Additional Advocate General for Mr.M. Elumalai Government Advocate
[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] Heard both sides.
Respondent to issue Community Certificate to his Son viz., R.Senthamilan that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the Petitioner, his daughter and his brother and also verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in Proceedings No.1222/CVIII/2007 dated 17.12.2013.
1.The Petitioner's Community Certificate.
2.Community Certificate of Petitioner's brother Jaishankar. 3.Community Certificate of Petitioner's daughter Tamilisai. 4.Community Certificate and State Level Scrutiny Committee report of Petitioner's cousin brother Sakthivel.
5.Family Tree Certificate issued by the Tahsildar.
The Respondent conducted enquiry on 16.06.2015 and on the same day, the petitioner produced all the above documents before the Respondent. .
4.It comes to be known that the Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri, has passed the Impugned Order on 03.07.2015 rejecting the Petitioner's request for issuance of Community Certificate to his son viz., R.Senthamilan. Therefore, as an aggrieved person, against the order of negativing his request for issuance of Community Certificate dated 03.07.2015 by the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.
Sl Community Issuing Appellate Redressal
. Authority Authority of
Grievances
1 Backward Classes / Zonal Tahsildar District
Most Backward Deputy Collector
Classes/ Tahsildar
Denotified
Communities
2 Scheduled Castes Tahsildar Revenue District
Divisional Collector
Officer
3 Scheduled Tribes Revenue District District
Divisional Collector Collector &
Officer Chairman
District
Level
Vigilance
Committee
6.At this juncture, it is pertinent for this Court to make a
significant mention that in G.O.(Ms).No.235 Revenue [RA3(2)]
Department dated 26.06.2015, the Government of Tamilnadu based
on the orders passed by the Madurai Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1355 of 2015 dated 05.02.2015 between
D.Thirupathi V. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli and another, had constituted an Appellate Authority
for an 'Appeal' remedy in regard to the issuance of Community
Certificate, which runs as under:
Sl Community Issuing Appellate Redressal
. Authority Authority of
Grievances
1 Backward Classes / Zonal Tahsildar District
Most Backward Deputy Collector
Classes/ Tahsildar
Denotified
Communities
2 Scheduled Castes Tahsildar Revenue District
Divisional Collector
Officer
3 Scheduled Tribes Revenue District District
Divisional Collector Collector &
Officer Chairman
District
Level
Vigilance
Committee
Sl Community Issuing Appellate Redressal . Authority Authority of Grievances “3 Scheduled Tribes Revenue District State Level Divisional Collector Scrutiny Officer. Committee”
provision. In fact, Article 162 of the Constitution does not enjoin the State Government to pass executive Orders which are contrary to Law, which was already made on the subject, by the State, in as much as it would amount to rewriting Art. 162 of the Constitution of India.
11.That apart, in order that the Executive instructions have the force of statutory Rules, it is to be exhibited that they were issued either under the authority showered under the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court G.J.Fernandez V. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1967 SC Page 1753.
“In the backdrop of the Judgment passed in the criminal cases which have attained finality before the Supreme Court, the State Government, after examining the representations given by the landowners in these cases with reference to the relevant land records of the landholders of the villages, has rightly exercised its statutory power by appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer as an enquiry officer at the first instance and later on Deputy Commissioner of Pune was appointed to enquire into the matter which is in the large public interest.
(Para 26)
The order is passed by the State Government only to enquire into the landholding records with a view to find out as to whether original land revenue records have been destroyed and fabricated to substantiate their unjustifiable claim by paying fraud upon the Tahsildar and appellate authorities to obtain the orders unlawfully in their favour by showing that there is no surplus land with the Company and its shareholders as the valid sub-leases are made and they
are accepted by them in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, on the basis of the alleged false declarations filed by the shareholders and sub-lessees under Section 6 of the Act. The allegation of fraud in relation to getting the landholdings of the villages by the declarants on the alleged ground of destroying original revenue records and fabricating revenue records to show that there are 384 sub-leases of the land involved in the proceedings to retain the surplus land illegally as alleged, to the extent of more than 3000 acres of land and the orders are obtained unlawfully by the declarants in the land ceiling limits will be nullity in the eye of the law through such orders have attained finality, it if is found in the enquiry by the enquiry officer that they are tainted with fraud, the same can be interfered with by the State Government and its officers to pass appropriate orders. Fraud unravels everything and therefore, the question of limitation under the provisions to exercise power by the State Government does not arise at all. The land owners are also aggrieved parties to agitate their rights to get the orders which are obtained by the declarants as they are vitiated in law on account of nullity is the tenable submission and the same is well founded and acceptable to justify the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. (Para 27) The legal submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the State Government has no power either under Section 45(2) or under Section 14(4) of the 1961to appoint an enqujiry officer to enquire into the landholdings of the villages referred to therein are untenable contentions of the appellants which have been rightly rebutted by urging an alternative legal plea that the power exercised by the State Government to pass the orders impugned in the writ petitions is traceable to its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. This is the most tenable submission, having regard to the magnitude of the alleged fraud in relation to the vast extent of the landholding obtained by the declarants by giving false declarations with a view to come out from the clutches of the land ceiling provisions of the Act, which is the prima facie view taken by the State Government and the same cannot be found fault with by the Supreme Court in these proceedings at this stage.
(Paras 28 and 32)
Also in the aforesaid decision at Paragraph No.32 at Page No.572 among other things, it is observed as follows:
“.....In our considered view, the orders impugned
in the writ petitions which are affirmed by the High Court, are perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, but on the other hand, the aforesaid orders of the State Government can also be traceable to execute power of the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India having regard to the magnitude of the alleged fraud in relation to the vast extent of the landholding obtained by the declarants by giving false declarations with a view to come out from the clutches of the land ceiling provisions of the Act, which is the prima facie view taken by the State Government and the same cannot be found fault with by this Court in these proceedings at this stage....”
19.That apart, in case, the Petitioner seeks time for filing of additional documents or to lead oral / documentary evidence, then, in that event, the Appellate Authority, viz., District Collector, Dharmapuri, shall provide enough opportunity to the Petitioner by keeping in mind the 'Principles of Natural Justice'. The District Collector, Dharmapuri / Appellate Authority, is directed to pass necessary orders on the 'Appeal', as expeditiously as possible, in an Unbiased, Free, Just, Fair, impartial and dispassionate manner of course, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, in any event, not later than six weeks thereafter.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
kal
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the rejection of a community certificate application can be entertained when an adequate statutory appellate remedy exists.
Whether the Appellate Authority constituted by Government Orders for Scheduled Tribe community certificate grievances is lawful and effective.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babubhai V. NandalReferred¶28
Babubhai V. Nandal AIR 1974 SC 2105 · Who else cites this
Sumedha Nagpal V. State of DelhiReferred¶29
Sumedha Nagpal V. State of Delhi (2000) 9 SCC 745 · Who else cites this
G.J.Fernandez V. State of MysoreReferred¶33
G.J.Fernandez V. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1967 SC Page 1753 · Who else cites this
Kamala Godera V. State of RajasthanReferred¶34
Kamala Godera V. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 130 · Who else cites this
Naraindas V. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶34
Naraindas V. State of Madhya Pradesh in AIR 1974 SC Page 1232 · Who else cites this
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar V. State of MaharashtraExplained¶35
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar V. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K. RAVICHANDRAN
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HARUR
M. VENUGOPAL
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
